God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born!

If life starts truly starts at Conception, then God is, the world’s most prolific abortionist. Most fertilized eggs get washed away without ever implanting in the uterus. [3] [4] [5] [6] Many of the ova that do implant abort spontaneously very early in pregnancy. This scientific truth remained unknown to the public.

  1. Life begins at conception (Catholic Church , Vice President Joe Biden,  Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Wikipedia, [10])
    Life begins at conception and God aborts most life

    tru

  2. 50% to 90 % of all conceived ova never get implanted and born, due to natural causes [3] [4] [5] [6]. Women are unaware of this gigantic holocaust in their bellies.
  3. If life starts at conception, then more "babies" get killed then born
  4. Hence most residents of Heaven are souls of embryos that were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires. [9]
  5. Or,  Unchristened Embryos, Destination: Hell?
  6. Why do bioconservatives like Robert George not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos? They are live human beings with a soul.
  7. "If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.
  8. “The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother,” [1]. So rape or incest justify murder of an innocent child? Up to what age?
  9. If fire breaks out in a fertility clinic, would you save a 2 year old child, or save 10 lives in a petri dish with 10 fertilized blastocysts? oocytes[2]

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Wikipedia shows many other options to define as the beginning of life.  We are showing that the popular concept of "conception is the beginning of life" causes extreme logical problems: over half of all life never gets born, due to natural causes.

So other definitions need to be found (Wikipedia).

Late term abortions, of course, lead down a slippery slope until Peter Singer‘s philosophy that provides logical argument why "abortion" should be allowed into the first month after birth. We will not discuss this further, rather we will return to the absurdity of "conception at birth", defended by most US politicians of both parties. ovum-and-sperm


Why does god murder/abort so many babies?

Current estimates say that 60-80% of fertilized eggs probably fail to implant and then another 15-20% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.
So… that gives us a 34%-16% survival rate for fertilized eggs or to flip it around God murders between 66% and 84% of all babies.
Why if God is opposed to abortions does he kill so many babies?

 


Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born!” »
God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born… » continues here »

Share

Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics replaces our sexually-obsessed religious morality

The sexually-obsessed morality of conservative Christianity

.. and of other religions!  This phrase aptly summarizes the dilemma of most moral problems in the US and in the world. Moral discussion and legal discourse are obsessed with sexuality and relatively unconcerned with violence, greed, selfishness.

The more enlightened Christian readers have themselves now recognized that their Church’s preoccupation with sex has been a mistake: Dr George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, has admitted that the church has been guilty of ‘being caught up with the idea that sexual sins were “more significant” then other sins’ and has said that instead we should think more in terms of global problems such as world poverty. […] ethics has no necessary connection with the sexually-obsessed morality of conservative Christianity   Peter Singer “How Are We to Live?”

World poverty, corporative greed, dishonesty of politics, culture of violence, school yard bullying. So many real problems require ethics and morality.  Real violence, real damage to society and economy caused by moral failures.

But religions obsess with issues like birth control,  abortion: “saving” human life of small clusters of cells, while thousands of really alive and breathing humans starve or get killed in wars. Religions cause suffering by prohibiting stem cell research, mandating that embryos can be discarded to waste but can not be used for life saving medical research. Our laws interfere with birth control and HIV prevention. 20 year jail sentences for consensual sex with adolescents or mere possession of nude photos.

There is a reason for this religious obsession with sex.  Our holy books, are all around 2000 years old and were not updated.

Sexuality and baby-making were inseparable 2000 years ago

But nowadays, we have birth control. Sexuality is not identical to child production any more. Paternity can be verified with DNA tests and does not require virginity enforced by draconian punishments.

It is funny, though, how churches extrapolate their teachings unto issues that are not covered by the Bible: areas like stem cells, birth control pill, etc. It is also interesting how churches influence politics and legal codes, in countries that have clear separation of church and state.

New ethics and morality are needed.

Merely abandoning religious ethics can lead to crime, greed, moral disorientation. We can observe this in politics, youth violence, obesity, nutrition, corporate (lack of) ethics, general moral disorientation of large parts of the population.Morality & Ethics without God: Peter Singer’s Utilitarianism

Read hundreds of free articles by and about Peter Singer


Very good overview of Peter Singer’s ethics. Just listen to the audio, the video is not interesting.  This is not a single video but a set of videos.
Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Singer is the greatest contemporary exponent of utilitarianism, the doctrine that actions should aim to maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Given that our every action has consequences for this end, we are truly immersed in morality.

Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy is an alternative to stupidity derived from religious beliefs. Where Richard Dawkins just vaguely surmises about morality without religion, Peter Singer devotes his life to the intricacies of such a morality.  As I have stated, the rules from holy books like Bible or Koran were very sensible at the time they were written. But they need overhaul. And, preferably, without resorting to God or Prophets. Peter Singer can come to the rescue.

Dinesh de Souza made the great compliment: Singer’s ethics is what you arrive at with logic and without God: “Peter Singer represents the sharpest, deepest, certainly the most lucid, the most consistent in arguing out the premises and the implications of atheism”.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA is part 1 of a 12 (!) part discussion with Peter Singer. Very interesting to see in its entirety. In part 1 Dinesh gives a fairly good but hostile description of Peter Singer’s philosophy)
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics replaces our sexually-obsessed religious morality” »
Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics replaces our sexually-obse… » continues here »

Share

Cruise far away from Haiti to alleviate your guilty conscience!?

Going to a beach resort in Haiti, leaving money in the impoverished country, is “unethical”.  Feasting, overeating and being obese in neigboring Dominican Republic, or anywhere else in the world is ok.  Political correctness going overboard.

Blogs and message boards have been full of outrage and disgust at the idea of tourists frolicking in the sun while bodies pile up in Port-au-Prince and quake survivors struggle to stay alive. […]
“… How can you sit there and say, ‘Waiter, bring me a drink’ while I’m on a private beach … knowing that 100 miles away, people are dying,” Jones said.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/21/haiti.tourism.ethics/index.html

Of course, instead of talking, maybe these do-gooders should all embark to Haiti as volunteer helpers and donate all their wages to Haiti development. This would cause a positive impact.  Being obese and overeating in Paris, Los Angeles or Kansas is ok. Out of sight, out of mind.

I am so glad CNN talked to a sensible intelligent person, so I don’t need to say more:

Haiti’s plight wouldn’t improve if the cruise ships were diverted to another nearby island and pretended the disaster wasn’t happening, agreed Chris MacDonald, a senior fellow at Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics and a philosophy professor at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He also writes The Business Ethics Blog.

“The cruise ships aren’t hurting anyone, in fact they’re doing some good, they’re bringing some help,” MacDonald said.

People who believe it’s disrespectful for tourists to enjoy themselves so close to a disaster zone should realize that the alternative of avoiding the area wouldn’t be more respectful, MacDonald added.

The proximity sets off our gut reactions, but it doesn’t seem to make any real moral difference, he said.

Mullis pointed out that the Dominican Republic — Haiti’s touristy neighbor on the island of Hispaniola — is also close to the disaster but is doing business as usual.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/21/haiti.tourism.ethics/index.html

Share